We often hear that the Taiwan Relations Act, the One China Policy, and the Three Joint Communiques are the cornerstones of the USA - Taiwan - PRC trilateral relationship. However, is anything being overlooked here?

In fact, the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) is of a higher legal weight than any of these. This treaty was ratified by the US Senate and came into force on April 28, 1952.

Hence, in the post WWII period, the SFPT is the most important legal document regarding the disposition of Taiwan territory. Notably, in this treaty, Taiwan was not awarded to China.

We often hear that the Taiwan Relations Act, the One China Policy, and the Three Joint Communiques are the cornerstones of the USA - Taiwan - PRC tril

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVJ68S9LYmw

0

0

The Republic of China flag and Taiwan251 sec.Views: 524

The Republic of China flag and Taiwan

On New Year’s Day 2015, the ROC flag was raised in several ceremonies near Washington, D.C. However, both the American Institute in Taiwan and the Dept. of State stressed that flying the ROC flag "violated" previous agreements, treaties, laws, etc. and is inconsistent with U.S. policy. In reaction to this, the ROC flag was immediately taken down.

Today, however, the question remains: Why is the ROC flag flying over Taiwan? Why isn’t the ROC flag being taken down in Taipei, Taichung, Kaohsiung and other Taiwan cities, according to the precedent established in Washington D.C.?

Importantly, are there any “legal justifications” for the ROC flag to be flying over Taiwan? This video discusses all relevant details.

On New Year’s Day 2015, the ROC flag was raised in several ceremonies near Washington, D.C. However, both the American Institute in Taiwan and the Dep

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoXjDrZ3sFk

0

0

Taiwan Arms Sales and Military Conscription201 sec.Views: 351

Taiwan Arms Sales and Military Conscription

At the close of fighting in the Pacific War, it was the USA which was the legal occupier of Japan and her overseas territories such as Taiwan. In 1952, Taiwan was not awarded to the Republic of China (ROC) in the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT), but the US still allowed the ROC government officials and military personnel to remain in Taiwan as a proxy occupying force, serving as a bulwark against communist expansion. Under the terms of the treaty, the United States then continued its role as the “principal occupying power.”

Based on the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the United States sells military hardware to Taiwan, but such sales must necessarily be predicated on an assumption that mandatory military conscription policies in the ROC rest on a firm legal basis. Is there any such legal basis? This video looks at some of the details involved in answering this question.

At the close of fighting in the Pacific War, it was the USA which was the legal occupier of Japan and her overseas territories such as Taiwan. In 195

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6pgj133n_s

0

0

The End of the War and Taiwan's Undetermined Status1366 sec.Views: 268

The End of the War and Taiwan's Undetermined Status

This video explains three common mistakes which many researchers make in discussing Taiwan's legal status. It also includes some insights on how some people "misinterpret" the content of the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty when discussing the topic of "Who owns Taiwan?"

A sophisticated "Sovereignty Displacement Analysis" is also provided. Moreover, detailed references for the legal concepts presented herein are given at the end.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Chinese subtitled version -- https://youtu.be/1-EEfgKSWNA

This video explains three common mistakes which many researchers make in discussing Taiwan's legal status. It also includes some insights on how some

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GihhzLiaT4A

0

0

Letter to the American Institute in Taiwan290 sec.Views: 349

Letter to the American Institute in Taiwan

This Letter outlines a number of human rights abuses suffered by Taiwan persons carrying "Republic of China" passports and traveling internationally. Promulgations of the US Executive Branch regarding Taiwan's undetermined status, the One China Policy, and the Taiwan Relations Act are also overviewed.

The question is then asked -- How can any U.S. government official or elected representative maintain that the continued use of a Republic of China passport is in compliance with the clause in the Taiwan Relations Act which specifies: "The preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan are hereby reaffirmed as objectives of the United States."

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

For the full text of the Letter in English, and with a Chinese translation, see -- http://www.twinfopost.com/ait/

This Letter outlines a number of human rights abuses suffered by Taiwan persons carrying "Republic of China" passports and traveling internationally.

This film briefly delves into the subject of Taiwanese national identity.

A common situation which is more and more discussed in the Taiwan press is the Taiwan people’s “Identity Crisis”. For the most part, this identity crisis is spoken of in terms of the Republic of China passports held by Taiwan people.

For more information, please refer to our webpage -- http://www.taiwanadvice.com/ttt/

Chinese subtitled version of this video -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTyzTa2pLpE

This film briefly delves into the subject of Taiwanese national identity.

A common situation which is more and more discussed in the Taiwan press is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo4b5mvhUvU

0

0

CIA ANALYSIS: Rep. of China on Taiwan does not meet the qualifying criteria for statehood624 sec.Views: 518

CIA ANALYSIS: Rep. of China on Taiwan does not meet the qualifying criteria for statehood

In Taiwan, the Japanese surrender ceremonies were held on October 25, 1945, in Taipei City. The day marks the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan.

The United States is the conqueror of Taiwan, therefore it must be responsible for the military occupation, including the tasks of reconstruction. In other words, the “legal occupier” of Taiwan territory is the United States.

The surrender ceremonies in Taiwan on October 25, 1945, were held on behalf of the Allies. However, the ensuing military occupation is being conducted on behalf of the conqueror, which is the United States.

This arrangement was fully confirmed in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. As of the date of the Treaty's entry into force, the "Allied Powers" have been dissolved. But the United States continues to fulfill the role of the principal occupying power.

In short, in October 1945 Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Government were only assigned to Taiwan to conduct the military occupation. In December 1949, many high-ranking military officers of the Republic of China, government officials, and other faithful followers of Chiang Kai-shek fled to occupied Taiwan (thus leaving their homeland). They then established a temporary capital for their foreign regime in Taipei. So, as of December 1949, the Republic of China has become a government in exile.

In Taiwan, the Japanese surrender ceremonies were held on October 25, 1945, in Taipei City. The day marks the beginning of the military occupation of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U84TbKpR48

0

0

CIA REPORT: The Republic of China does not have sovereignty over Taiwan881 sec.Views: 1454

CIA REPORT: The Republic of China does not have sovereignty over Taiwan

The Taiwan Historical News (THN) channel has produced a new series of programs on Taiwan's international legal status, based on the historical and legal record. These programs are very informative.

In Part 1, the contents and implications of an official Central Intelligence Agency report from March 1949 are examined. This CIA report confirms that Taiwan is territory under military occupation, and that there was no "Taiwan Retrocession Day" on October 25, 1945.

In regard to the development of Taiwan's history and legal status, this THN program also points out that the websites of the majority of think-tanks in the United States and other countries contain much incorrect or misleading information. To a large extent, this is because the organizers and sponsors of these think-tanks have very little knowledge of the laws of war of the post-Napoleonic period.